Re: scientific data

[Agent_Orange]

Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<922f2cbd5fbbf06560590ced5481305c@free.teranews.com >...
> Curious how nobody else has managed to come up with a working solution
> to the problem.

And Harry wrote:
> As far as I know, no one has yet been able to come up
> with a program that works better for most people than the AA
> program.

The constantly-repeated chant that A.A. is the best, most-successful
alcoholism treatment program in the world is just another
example of the Big Lie propaganda technique.
See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#big_lie

The simple truth is: A.A. Does Not Work. It is quack medicine.
It has failed every rigorously-controlled, fair, unbiased test to
which it has ever been put. The A.A. program is no better than
no treatment at all, and has often proven far worse than no treatment --
producing a higher death rate and a higher rate of binge drinking.
Teaching alcoholics that they are powerless over alcohol is a
terrible mistake, and it causes big problems.

See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html


* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[rosie readandpost]

no one HAS come up with a better treatment, than the 12 step model.


--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie



"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message news:8e728989.0306251115.77f88526@posting.google.c om...
> Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<922f2cbd5fbbf06560590ced5481305c@free.teranews.com >...
> > Curious how nobody else has managed to come up with a working solution
> > to the problem.
>
> And Harry wrote:
> > As far as I know, no one has yet been able to come up
> > with a program that works better for most people than the AA
> > program.
>
> The constantly-repeated chant that A.A. is the best, most-successful
> alcoholism treatment program in the world is just another
> example of the Big Lie propaganda technique.
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#big_lie
>
> The simple truth is: A.A. Does Not Work. It is quack medicine.
> It has failed every rigorously-controlled, fair, unbiased test to
> which it has ever been put. The A.A. program is no better than
> no treatment at all, and has often proven far worse than no treatment --
> producing a higher death rate and a higher rate of binge drinking.
> Teaching alcoholics that they are powerless over alcohol is a
> terrible mistake, and it causes big problems.
>
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
>
>
> * Agent Orange *
> * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[pauly]

it does seem rosie, if you take this at face value, that getting no
treatment is better than using any 12 step model.
"rosie readandpost" <readandpost@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RhoKa.152148$jT4.2712414@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> no one HAS come up with a better treatment, than the 12 step model.
>
>
> --
> read and post daily, it works!
> rosie
>
>
>
> "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0306251115.77f88526@posting.google.c om...
> > Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<922f2cbd5fbbf06560590ced5481305c@free.teranews.com >...
> > > Curious how nobody else has managed to come up with a working solution
> > > to the problem.
> >
> > And Harry wrote:
> > > As far as I know, no one has yet been able to come up
> > > with a program that works better for most people than the AA
> > > program.
> >
> > The constantly-repeated chant that A.A. is the best, most-successful
> > alcoholism treatment program in the world is just another
> > example of the Big Lie propaganda technique.
> > See:
> > http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#big_lie
> >
> > The simple truth is: A.A. Does Not Work. It is quack medicine.
> > It has failed every rigorously-controlled, fair, unbiased test to
> > which it has ever been put. The A.A. program is no better than
> > no treatment at all, and has often proven far worse than no treatment --
> > producing a higher death rate and a higher rate of binge drinking.
> > Teaching alcoholics that they are powerless over alcohol is a
> > terrible mistake, and it causes big problems.
> >
> > See:
> > http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
> >
> >
> > * Agent Orange *
> > * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> > * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> > * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> > * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> > * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> > * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *
>
>

[rosie readandpost]

"pauly" <paul.youles@REMOVETHISvirgin.net> wrote in message news:mOqKa.2420$wb2.1798@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> it does seem rosie, if you take this at face value, that getting no
> treatment is better than using any 12 step model.


NO treatment?
we were discussing what was, to date, the most successful treatment.

(remember though, that all the statistics gathered and just that, statistics!)

[pauly]

it can only be taken at face value though as non of the stats are
referenced. If someone is going to use stats to back up an argument they all
need to be referenced.

[Agent_Orange]

"rosie readandpost" <readandpost@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<UIBKa.155879$jT4.2766595@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> "pauly" <paul.youles@REMOVETHISvirgin.net> wrote in message news:mOqKa.2420$wb2.1798@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > it does seem rosie, if you take this at face value, that getting no
> > treatment is better than using any 12 step model.
>
>
> NO treatment?
> we were discussing what was, to date, the most successful treatment.
>
> (remember though, that all the statistics gathered and just that, statistics!)

No, it is not the most successful treatment program.
It is one of the worst. Read the file.
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html

And while you may choose to laugh at statistics, I began that file
with this quote, which is still quite true:

'After all, facts are facts, and although we may
quote one to another with a chuckle the words of
the Wise Statesman, "Lies - damn lies - and statistics,"
still there are some easy figures the simplest must
understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of.'
Leonard Henry Courtney, the British economist and
politician (1832-1918), later Lord Courtney,
New York, August 1895.

A zero percent success rate, for instance, is a zero
percent success rate. Undeniably, a program with such
a low success rate cannot be the most successful
program in the world.

And while you are claiming that A.A. is the most successful
program, please supply some hard numbers -- yes, statistics --
to back up that claim. In your opinion, exactly what
success rate does A.A. have?

Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.
So are his claims that 50% recovered. That was false.
See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Bob_memorial

So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?

* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shroedinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Moonraker]

"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0306261111.790e8f5f@posting.google.c om...
>>
> Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
> seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.


Obvious to whom? If you are planning on quoting passages from the BB
.....best you use the whole thing in context. You conveniently left off the
rest of the sentence which accurately quoted says "Rarely we have seen a
person fail WHO HAS THOROUGHLY FOLLOWED OUR PATH." If one sets out on a
hike on a well-marked path, they rarely get lost. Even a dipshit like
yourself should be able to understand that.



> So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?
>


"I" only claim myself as a success. That's one fer one.

[Cartman]

Agent Orange, what an appropriate name.....a caustic defoliant....in this
case you seek to strip away an outlet for people that have run out of them.
Not sure if you are a disgruntled "statistic" that didn't engage the program
or an advocate of some other methodology (rational recovery, moderation,
etc.). Regardless, there are a few points requiring mention:

1. In 3 successive semesters of graduate statistics, I was constantly
reminded that statistical sampling and survey design is every bit as
important (if not more) as the interpretation and summarization of data.
Statistics can be made to prove ANYTHING (e.g., I could even prove that you
are not braindead). My guess, (and forgive me if you are a world class
statistician), is that in your haste to malign the efficacy of the AA
program, you did a good bit of copying/pasting. Bear in mind that a
hypothesis is typically formulated PRIOR TO the actual research. Many times,
sampling and survey design is skewed miserably in order to validate less
than capable "scientists" careers while "proving" faulty hypotheses.

2. Assuming every single data point cited is accurate and the research
designs were ALL perfect, is AA still a detriment to all of the poor
unfortunates that have expended all other resources, programs, etc. Even if
it AA were directly killing some people (as you basically allege), how long
would they live stumbling along roadsides as many do, living under bridges,
doing the drugs that very often go hand-in-hand with booze? For some
"fortunates", AA comes along before they have destroyed too many lives but
for others it is the last stop on the tracks. I am a "fortunate" but MANY
speakers I have listened too arrived at AA as a last stop on the tracks
before death (and not a moment too soon).

3. AA's are required to make an investment. Not an investment in a drug with
only a 5% rate of success as in your FDA analogy, but in themselves.
Regardless of what alternative is suggested (and AA is not the only program
that can help people), the addict must take ownership of their addiction and
embrace their recovery. That is all AA asks. I am not an old-timer in the
program and do not claim to speak for anyone but myself. If I do not take
ownership of my addicition and actively seek to embrace a program of
recovery (AA in my case), I WILL return to my old ways.

My question to you: Can you suggest a more effective program than AA that
will not possibly kill me? Is there something you can share with the "poor
misguided" AA's reading this NG that will help them recover while staying
out of the grasps of AA. Seriously, please share your/any alternative. If
you cannot, I can only assume that you have no value to add to ANY recovery
group and only seek to vent your frustrations or harm those in recovery.

Cheers,

-Cartman


"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0306261111.790e8f5f@posting.google.c om...
> "rosie readandpost" <readandpost@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<UIBKa.155879$jT4.2766595@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > "pauly" <paul.youles@REMOVETHISvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:mOqKa.2420$wb2.1798@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > it does seem rosie, if you take this at face value, that getting no
> > > treatment is better than using any 12 step model.
> >
> >
> > NO treatment?
> > we were discussing what was, to date, the most successful treatment.
> >
> > (remember though, that all the statistics gathered and just that,
statistics!)
>
> No, it is not the most successful treatment program.
> It is one of the worst. Read the file.
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
>
> And while you may choose to laugh at statistics, I began that file
> with this quote, which is still quite true:
>
> 'After all, facts are facts, and although we may
> quote one to another with a chuckle the words of
> the Wise Statesman, "Lies - damn lies - and statistics,"
> still there are some easy figures the simplest must
> understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of.'
> Leonard Henry Courtney, the British economist and
> politician (1832-1918), later Lord Courtney,
> New York, August 1895.
>
> A zero percent success rate, for instance, is a zero
> percent success rate. Undeniably, a program with such
> a low success rate cannot be the most successful
> program in the world.
>
> And while you are claiming that A.A. is the most successful
> program, please supply some hard numbers -- yes, statistics --
> to back up that claim. In your opinion, exactly what
> success rate does A.A. have?
>
> Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
> seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.
> So are his claims that 50% recovered. That was false.
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Bob_memorial
>
> So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?
>
> * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> * that even was Shroedinger's cat. I think *
> * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[pauly]

3. AA's are required to make an investment. Not an investment in a drug with
only a 5% rate of success as in your FDA analogy, but in themselves.
Regardless of what alternative is suggested (and AA is not the only program
that can help people), the addict must take ownership of their addiction and
embrace their recovery.


Aren't we supposed to hand that ownership over to our higher power? Your
interpretation makes more sense to me though, in that I need to take
responsibility for my own behaviour.

[rosie readandpost]

> 1. In 3 successive semesters of graduate statistics, I was constantly
> reminded that statistical sampling and survey design is every bit as
> important (if not more) as the interpretation and summarization of data.
> Statistics can be made to prove ANYTHING


AMEN!
i remember learning this back in my college days, (soc.101 i believe)

rosie

[rosie readandpost]

> Aren't we supposed to hand that ownership over to our higher power? Your
> interpretation makes more sense to me though, in that I need to take
> responsibility for my own behaviour.
>
>

pauly,
i DO take responsibility for my recovery, as do the folks in AA, that helped me to get sober.
i am responsible to CHANGE THE THINGS THAT I CAN CHANGE, and keep doing the things that got and keep me sober!

rosie

[Agent_Orange]

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<tvKKa.15043$XR4.2589@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> news:8e728989.0306261111.790e8f5f@posting.google.c om...
> >>
> > Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
> > seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.
>
>
> Obvious to whom? If you are planning on quoting passages from the BB
> ....best you use the whole thing in context. You conveniently left off the
> rest of the sentence which accurately quoted says "Rarely we have seen a
> person fail WHO HAS THOROUGHLY FOLLOWED OUR PATH." If one sets out on a
> hike on a well-marked path, they rarely get lost. Even a dipshit like
> yourself should be able to understand that.
>
That is just the standard propaganda stunt of lying with qualifiers.
According to Bill Wilson, ALMOST NOBODY thoroughly followed the path...
>
> > So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?
> >
>
>
You still haven't answered this question.

> "I" only claim myself as a success. That's one fer one.

Annecdotal proof is no proof at all.
It is just like someone who says, "I was very, very sick,
and then I drank 5 bottles of Dr. Quackinduck's Magic
Rejuvenating Elixir and immediately got better.
So that proves that the Elixir is good medicine."
How does the speaker know that he wouldn't have gotten
better anyway, without the Elixir?
Only a large controlled study will reveal the truth.
Individual cases prove nothing.

The Food and Drug Administration does not accept annecdotal
stories as proof of the efficacy of any medical treatment
that is undergoing tests. Neither does the American Medical
Association.

I discussed that in the file.
You would do well to read it:
http:aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Moonraker]

Anecdotal proof is the only proof I need now. I used to need 80 or 100
proof, but I recovered from that. Anecdotal is good.

The fact that you've gotten your teenie little pee-pee all engorged over AA
is pretty laughable. The bus from Looneyville stopped and you just got off
in our newsgroup, eh?

Can you cite references your allegation that according to Bill W. "almost
nobody thoroughly followed the path"? And try not to lie to me.

Anytime you are ready.

PS: Save your references to your "website". I have a hard and fast rule
about NEVER going to any site hosted by tripod.com, the home of kiddie
scripters, malware, spyware, and general lowlifes.


"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0306271040.794ebe25@posting.google.c om...
> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<tvKKa.15043$XR4.2589@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> > news:8e728989.0306261111.790e8f5f@posting.google.c om...
> > >>
> > > Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
> > > seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.
> >
> >
> > Obvious to whom? If you are planning on quoting passages from the BB
> > ....best you use the whole thing in context. You conveniently left off
the
> > rest of the sentence which accurately quoted says "Rarely we have seen
a
> > person fail WHO HAS THOROUGHLY FOLLOWED OUR PATH." If one sets out on
a
> > hike on a well-marked path, they rarely get lost. Even a dipshit like
> > yourself should be able to understand that.
> >
> That is just the standard propaganda stunt of lying with qualifiers.
> According to Bill Wilson, ALMOST NOBODY thoroughly followed the path...
> >
> > > So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?
> > >
> >
> >
> You still haven't answered this question.
>
> > "I" only claim myself as a success. That's one fer one.
>
> Annecdotal proof is no proof at all.
> It is just like someone who says, "I was very, very sick,
> and then I drank 5 bottles of Dr. Quackinduck's Magic
> Rejuvenating Elixir and immediately got better.
> So that proves that the Elixir is good medicine."
> How does the speaker know that he wouldn't have gotten
> better anyway, without the Elixir?
> Only a large controlled study will reveal the truth.
> Individual cases prove nothing.
>
> The Food and Drug Administration does not accept annecdotal
> stories as proof of the efficacy of any medical treatment
> that is undergoing tests. Neither does the American Medical
> Association.
>
> I discussed that in the file.
> You would do well to read it:
> http:aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
>
> * Agent Orange *
> * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[pauly]

he is right, you would do well to read the site in full, it is always good
to see any story form both sides. I have been told today by a friend who
works for Manchester Community Drug and Alcohol Team which is the UKs
government official first stop for treatment after your GP, that the general
view amongst professional alcohol and drug workers in the UK is that it is
very dangerous to tell any addict that they are powerless over their
addiction. (my problem with that first step), as this just gives them
another excuse to fail. The general trend is now away from 12 step treatment
as they have found that it is not successful in the majority of cases, as
per this web site written by agent orange. Anyone who dismisses this web
site without even reading it, is just adding fuel to the cult accusation
fire.
"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xx0La.1328$Im5.1076@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
> Anecdotal proof is the only proof I need now. I used to need 80 or 100
> proof, but I recovered from that. Anecdotal is good.
>
> The fact that you've gotten your teenie little pee-pee all engorged over
AA
> is pretty laughable. The bus from Looneyville stopped and you just got
off
> in our newsgroup, eh?
>
> Can you cite references your allegation that according to Bill W. "almost
> nobody thoroughly followed the path"? And try not to lie to me.
>
> Anytime you are ready.
>
> PS: Save your references to your "website". I have a hard and fast rule
> about NEVER going to any site hosted by tripod.com, the home of kiddie
> scripters, malware, spyware, and general lowlifes.
>
>
> "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> news:8e728989.0306271040.794ebe25@posting.google.c om...
> > "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<tvKKa.15043$XR4.2589@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > > "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> > > news:8e728989.0306261111.790e8f5f@posting.google.c om...
> > > >>
> > > > Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
> > > > seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.
> > >
> > >
> > > Obvious to whom? If you are planning on quoting passages from the BB
> > > ....best you use the whole thing in context. You conveniently left
off
> the
> > > rest of the sentence which accurately quoted says "Rarely we have
seen
> a
> > > person fail WHO HAS THOROUGHLY FOLLOWED OUR PATH." If one sets out
on
> a
> > > hike on a well-marked path, they rarely get lost. Even a dipshit like
> > > yourself should be able to understand that.
> > >
> > That is just the standard propaganda stunt of lying with qualifiers.
> > According to Bill Wilson, ALMOST NOBODY thoroughly followed the path...
> > >
> > > > So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > You still haven't answered this question.
> >
> > > "I" only claim myself as a success. That's one fer one.
> >
> > Annecdotal proof is no proof at all.
> > It is just like someone who says, "I was very, very sick,
> > and then I drank 5 bottles of Dr. Quackinduck's Magic
> > Rejuvenating Elixir and immediately got better.
> > So that proves that the Elixir is good medicine."
> > How does the speaker know that he wouldn't have gotten
> > better anyway, without the Elixir?
> > Only a large controlled study will reveal the truth.
> > Individual cases prove nothing.
> >
> > The Food and Drug Administration does not accept annecdotal
> > stories as proof of the efficacy of any medical treatment
> > that is undergoing tests. Neither does the American Medical
> > Association.
> >
> > I discussed that in the file.
> > You would do well to read it:
> > http:aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
> >
> > * Agent Orange *
> > * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> > * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> > * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> > * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> > * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> > * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *
>
>
>

[rosie readandpost]

pauly,
the most IMPORTANT thing i can possible think of, when i come to this recovery newsgroup is that folks NEED to find what
works for them.

it is NOT NECESSARY for you or anyone to believe they are powerless over their addiction, or follow a 12 step model at
all.
for some (like me) it works, but for some, it doesn't.
it IS necessary however for you to find some solution to what you have described as a problem with alcohol.


--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

the control center of your life is your attitude.
------------------------------- anonymous










"pauly" <paul.youles@REMOVETHISvirgin.net> wrote in message news:oF4La.1617$dt4.78574@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> he is right, you would do well to read the site in full, it is always good
> to see any story form both sides. I have been told today by a friend who
> works for Manchester Community Drug and Alcohol Team which is the UKs
> government official first stop for treatment after your GP, that the general
> view amongst professional alcohol and drug workers in the UK is that it is
> very dangerous to tell any addict that they are powerless over their
> addiction. (my problem with that first step), as this just gives them
> another excuse to fail. The general trend is now away from 12 step treatment
> as they have found that it is not successful in the majority of cases, as
> per this web site written by agent orange. Anyone who dismisses this web
> site without even reading it, is just adding fuel to the cult accusation
> fire.
> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Xx0La.1328$Im5.1076@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
> > Anecdotal proof is the only proof I need now. I used to need 80 or 100
> > proof, but I recovered from that. Anecdotal is good.
> >
> > The fact that you've gotten your teenie little pee-pee all engorged over
> AA
> > is pretty laughable. The bus from Looneyville stopped and you just got
> off
> > in our newsgroup, eh?
> >
> > Can you cite references your allegation that according to Bill W. "almost
> > nobody thoroughly followed the path"? And try not to lie to me.
> >
> > Anytime you are ready.
> >
> > PS: Save your references to your "website". I have a hard and fast rule
> > about NEVER going to any site hosted by tripod.com, the home of kiddie
> > scripters, malware, spyware, and general lowlifes.
> >
> >
> > "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> > news:8e728989.0306271040.794ebe25@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:<tvKKa.15043$XR4.2589@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > > > "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:8e728989.0306261111.790e8f5f@posting.google.c om...
> > > > >>
> > > > > Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
> > > > > seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Obvious to whom? If you are planning on quoting passages from the BB
> > > > ....best you use the whole thing in context. You conveniently left
> off
> > the
> > > > rest of the sentence which accurately quoted says "Rarely we have
> seen
> > a
> > > > person fail WHO HAS THOROUGHLY FOLLOWED OUR PATH." If one sets out
> on
> > a
> > > > hike on a well-marked path, they rarely get lost. Even a dipshit like
> > > > yourself should be able to understand that.
> > > >
> > > That is just the standard propaganda stunt of lying with qualifiers.
> > > According to Bill Wilson, ALMOST NOBODY thoroughly followed the path...
> > > >
> > > > > So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You still haven't answered this question.
> > >
> > > > "I" only claim myself as a success. That's one fer one.
> > >
> > > Annecdotal proof is no proof at all.
> > > It is just like someone who says, "I was very, very sick,
> > > and then I drank 5 bottles of Dr. Quackinduck's Magic
> > > Rejuvenating Elixir and immediately got better.
> > > So that proves that the Elixir is good medicine."
> > > How does the speaker know that he wouldn't have gotten
> > > better anyway, without the Elixir?
> > > Only a large controlled study will reveal the truth.
> > > Individual cases prove nothing.
> > >
> > > The Food and Drug Administration does not accept annecdotal
> > > stories as proof of the efficacy of any medical treatment
> > > that is undergoing tests. Neither does the American Medical
> > > Association.
> > >
> > > I discussed that in the file.
> > > You would do well to read it:
> > > http:aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
> > >
> > > * Agent Orange *
> > > * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> > > * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> > > * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> > > * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> > > * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> > > * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:45:24 +0100, "pauly"
<paul.youles@REMOVETHISvirgin.net> wrote:

>he is right, you would do well to read the site in full,

I did. I would rather see something unbiased, but the site in
question is far from!

--
Blue Moon

[Agent_Orange]

"Cartman" <omar_adebisi@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<-YGdnbi_sL1xLGajRTvU2Q@speakeasy.net>...

> Agent Orange, what an appropriate name.....a caustic defoliant....in this
> case you seek to strip away an outlet for people that have run out of them.
> Not sure if you are a disgruntled "statistic" that didn't engage the program
> or an advocate of some other methodology (rational recovery, moderation,
> etc.). Regardless, there are a few points requiring mention:

I am a person who is above all interested in letting people
know the truth about the whole "recovery movement" scam and
the 12-step cult religion.
I am all for "rigorous honesty", which is what A.A. is
supposed to be about, but isn't. (A.A. is more about "Fake It
Until You Make It" and "Act As If"...)

> 1. In 3 successive semesters of graduate statistics, I was constantly
> reminded that statistical sampling and survey design is every bit as
> important (if not more) as the interpretation and summarization of data.
> Statistics can be made to prove ANYTHING (e.g., I could even prove that you
> are not braindead). My guess, (and forgive me if you are a world class
> statistician), is that in your haste to malign the efficacy of the AA
> program, you did a good bit of copying/pasting. Bear in mind that a
> hypothesis is typically formulated PRIOR TO the actual research. Many times,
> sampling and survey design is skewed miserably in order to validate less
> than capable "scientists" careers while "proving" faulty hypotheses.


I am well aware of the ways in which statistics can be misused
and abused. See my rap on it:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#statistics

And I have also read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrel
Huff, and I recommend that other people read it too. I use
some of his examples in that web page on propaganda
techniques.

You paint with a very broad brush, and only speak in sweeping
generalities. Are you attempting to discredit all studies in
the whole world that ever used statistics, or are you only
interested in denouncing all of the studies of Alcoholics
Anonymous that gave results that you don't like?

Even if it is only the later, you still smear Professor Dr.
George E. Vaillant, Class A Trustee of Alcoholics Anonymous
World Services, Inc., who attempted for many years to prove
the effectiveness of A.A. treatment, only to be forced to
conclude that A.A. had failed to alter the natural history
(usual course) of alcoholism, and in addition, increased the
death rate. Prof. Vaillant stated that the death rate of the
A.A. program was "appalling". Are you accusing Dr. Vaillant
of cheating and abusing statistics and cooking the books
to make A.A. look bad? A leader of A.A., out to get A.A.?
See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant

In addition, some things are not open to interpretation,
statistics or no statistics. When Vaillant reported that 29%
of his patients were dead after 8 years of A.A. treatment,
that was not just a value judgement, or just someone's opinion,
or open to interpretation. Dead is dead. Those are hard facts,
not vague statistics. Honestly counting the number of dead
people (29 out of 100), and telling the truth about it,
is not decieving people with statistics.

I began the web page on the effectiveness of 12-step treatment
with a relevant quote from Lord Courtney, and it is still so
true:

'After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to
another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman,
"Lies - damn lies - and statistics," still there are some easy
figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot
wriggle out of.'
(Leonard Henry Courtney, the British economist and politician
(1832-1918), later Lord Courtney, New York, August 1895.)

You cannot deny the truth of some simple numbers just because
some other people are clever about decieving people with
statistical tricks.

As far as the other doctors who conducted tests of the
effectiveness of A.A., do you have any evidence that any of
them cheated and used statistical or mathematical tricks to
fake the numbers and make A.A. look bad? Any evidence at all?

Do you have even one real fair, unbiased, *controlled* study
of A.A. that showed that A.A. produced good results?
I have been looking for one for a long time now. I am not
just out to make A.A. look bad. I want the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. I have collected every test
of the efficacy of A.A. that I could find from anywhere in
this world, at any time, and I'm still looking and collecting.
And all of the valid controlled tests showed that A.A. does
not work.

I have been challenging the A.A. true believers to come up
with even just one valid randomized longitudinal controlled
study to back up their grandiose claims of great success, but
nobody has produced a single one. Not even one.
Do you have one to support your claim that A.A. works?

You do know how to do a randomized longitudinal controlled study,
don't you?
It's like this, very simple really, and requires no statistical
tricks:

1.) Get a large number of alcoholics -- the more the better --
from somewhere, perhaps convicted drunk drivers from traffic
court who have been determined to be alcohol abusers or
alcohol-dependent by a doctor or competent therapist, and
then divide them, evenly, randomly, into two groups.

2.) Send the first group to A.A., and do nothing with the second
group. Let them go home and drink all they want. Give them no
"treatment" or punishment of any kind. (It's fair. Getting no
treatment -- being a guinea pig in a scientific experiment --
IS their punishment.)

3.) A year or two or several years later, count and measure
all of them, to see how many are still drinking destructively,
and how many are dead, and how many are abstinent, and how
many have reverted to moderate drinking. You might also ask
questions about binge drinking, health, legal difficulties,
divorce, employment, and other relevant issues.

4.) Compare the results from the group that got A.A. to the
results from the no-treatment group, to see what effect A.A.
had on the A.A. group.

Do you think that is a fair test? I do.

Every time that experiment has been done, the results were
that A.A. didn't work at all, and had no good long-term
effects on the alcoholics.
In fact, the A.A.-treated group often did worse than the
no-treatment group. It even dramatically increased the rate
of binge drinking. See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/effectiveness.html#Brandsma

Now you might argue that one or two studies were somehow
biased (you might, if you had any evidence of that), but you
would have to be rather paranoid to declare that every doctor
in the whole world who ever tested A.A. treatment was out to
make A.A. look bad -- that they were all biased, and that
they all started with the assumption that A.A. treatment was
ineffective. But every fair, randomized controlled test
has shown A.A. to be useless or worse.

Are you really accusing *all* of the doctors of faking the
results and cooking the books, and being "out to get A.A."?

Lastly, I do not quote out of context. My quotes are often
very long because I quote *in context*. Especially look at
the analysis of Vaillant's study. The quotes are long and give
the full context.

The person I see faking the numbers the most was Bill Wilson,
when he manufactured grossly inflated success rates for his
"new spiritual cure" by lying with qualifiers. See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Bob_memorial
and
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#qualifiers

> 2. Assuming every single data point cited is accurate and the research
> designs were ALL perfect, is AA still a detriment to all of the poor
> unfortunates that have expended all other resources, programs, etc. Even if
> it AA were directly killing some people (as you basically allege), how long
> would they live stumbling along roadsides as many do, living under bridges,
> doing the drugs that very often go hand-in-hand with booze? For some
> "fortunates", AA comes along before they have destroyed too many lives but
> for others it is the last stop on the tracks. I am a "fortunate" but MANY
> speakers I have listened too arrived at AA as a last stop on the tracks
> before death (and not a moment too soon).

The Harvard Medical School reported that fifty percent of all
alcoholics eventually quit, and 80% of those successful
quitters do it on their own, alone, without any "treatment".
Your stereotypical portrayal of the homeless stumble-bum
alcoholic is just that -- just another inaccurate stereotype.
Furthermore, even those few people for whom that is a fair
description do not benefit from cult religion or voodoo
medicine, or untrue dogma about alcoholism.
Just because down-and-out hard-core addiction is really bad
does not make cult religion really good.
The fact that some people do finally quit in time to save
their own lives does not make Bill Wilson's superstitions
true. You are mixing apples and oranges.
(--Which is what the name "Agent Orange" is really about. See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-letters2.html#Agent_Orange
and
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#apples_to_oranges
)

> 3. AA's are required to make an investment. Not an investment in a drug with
> only a 5% rate of success as in your FDA analogy, but in themselves.
> Regardless of what alternative is suggested (and AA is not the only program
> that can help people), the addict must take ownership of their addiction and
> embrace their recovery. That is all AA asks. I am not an old-timer in the
> program and do not claim to speak for anyone but myself. If I do not take
> ownership of my addicition and actively seek to embrace a program of
> recovery (AA in my case), I WILL return to my old ways.

What you are actually saying is:
1.) The A.A. 12-step program does not work, and it won't make
you quit drinking.
2.) You still have to do all of the hard work yourself, and
save yourself, and get your own life in order.

I agree with that attitude. That's how I quit and stay quit.
But then, after that, there just isn't any point in wasting
any time or energy on superstition, fake spirituality, or cult
religion, is there?

> My question to you: Can you suggest a more effective program than AA that
> will not possibly kill me? Is there something you can share with the "poor
> misguided" AA's reading this NG that will help them recover while staying
> out of the grasps of AA. Seriously, please share your/any alternative. If
> you cannot, I can only assume that you have no value to add to ANY recovery
> group and only seek to vent your frustrations or harm those in recovery.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Cartman


A.A. is not an effective program, period. It has a big fat
zero percent success rate. (All of the people you see at the
A.A. conventions are just the people who were going to quit
anyway. A.A. does not increase the rate of sobriety among
alcoholics.)
So there is no need to be talking about "a more effective
program than AA".
And who said that "programs" are necessary for recovery from
addictions? Who said that programs were helpful?
A.A. isn't.
Who said that meetings or groups are necessary?
Only Bill Wilson and his followers -- because Bill was told, in
the Oxford Group cult, that group meetings and group confessions
were necessary for salvation from sin, and Bill believed it.
But it still doesn't work. See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-religiousroots.html

The simple answer to alcoholism and drug addiction is,
JUST QUIT KILLING YOURSELF, OR YOU WILL DIE.
Period.
Your choice.

Some people choose to live, and some people choose to die.
And those who chose to die probably will.
Now that is grim, but that is the truth.

And A.A. cannot and does not save those who choose to die any
better than any other "program". In fact, several studies,
including those of Prof. Vaillant and Dr. Brandsma, found that
it was worse -- worse even than no "treatment".
A.A. increased the death rate and increased the rate of
binge drinking (which will also cause more deaths).

Likewise, A.A. does not help those who choose to live, either.

So why would we want a replacement program that is anything
at all like Alcoholics Anonymous?

(Oh, and your whole argument there, "Come up with a better
alternative to A.A.", is just an example of the Either/Or
propaganda technique -- "You can't criticize our program
unless you have a perfect, fool-proof, never-fails program
of your own to offer as an alternative. Either our program
or your program." That is bad logic.
If someone is selling witchcraft as a cure for AIDS, I can
most assuredly criticize his quack medicine without having
a working cure of my own to offer as an alternative.
See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#either_or )


But what can help those people who choose to live?
Well, the truth, and true, accurate information, just for
starters.
Treating them with compassion and respect will help a lot too.

Stop telling them that they are powerless over alcohol, or
powerless over their addictions.

Stop telling "the pigeons" and "the babies" that they
cannot think for themselves.

Stop telling them to expect a miracle, and to expect some
Magical Being to suddenly zap them and take away their desire
to get high (as well as their other so-called
"moral shortcomings" and "defects of character").

Stop the guilt-inducing routine of "moral inventories".

Stop the self-contempt and self-flagellation inherent in the
"sharing" routine.

Stop telling them that they are selfish and sinful and
inherently evil and incapable of running their own lives --
that they will "return to their old ways" if they leave
the cult..
(See "Us Stupid Drunks" --
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-us_stupid_drunks.html )

Stop feeding people misinformation and cult dogma, and
insisting that they must believe it or they are diseased and
in denial.

Stop telling people that there is a magical panacea -- a
sure-fire one-size-fits-all cure-all -- Bill Wilson's
"spiritual remedy".

Quit telling people crazy nonsense like that they must abandon
human intelligence, logic, and Reason, and just have faith
in the ravings of a lunatic like Bill Wilson. See chapter 4
of the Big Book. Also see my web page on it:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-religious_faith.html

Dump the whole cult religion routine.

Quit telling people to label themselves on the basis of what
they used to do, rather than what they are now --
"Hi, my name is Joe and I'm an alcoholic."
"My name is Sally and I'm a criminal addict."

Quit decieving people with the bait-and-switch con game.
See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-bait-switch.html

And most important of all: Stop abusing children and creating
the next generation of alcoholics and drug addicts.

DO:
Send people to SMART where they can learn some rational
techniques for straightening out their thinking and
controlling their impulses.
(I hear that SOS and WFS/MFS are also good, but I haven't been
to any of their meetings, so I can't say for sure...)

Note that SMART is more like a class than a "program". It's just
like high school -- you go until you have learned the stuff,
and then you walk out of the classroom and get on with your life.

If a group tells you that you have to stay in the group forever,
then watch out -- it's probably a cult.
(See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-cult_q0.html#cq_no_exit
and
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-cult_a0.html#ca_no_exit )

DO: Read Kasl, Sagan, Ellis, and Gilliam. See my Top 10 reading list:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-top10.html

DO: Also read my web page on the Lizard Brain Addiction Monster.
Understanding how that works has been an immense help to me in
staying sober.
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-addmonst.html

DO: Also read my web page, "Rat Park":
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-ratpark.html

DO: Quit smoking tobacco. Bill Wilson rationalized smoking, and
said that it was okay, because he didn't want to quit.
(See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-funny_spirituality.html )
But smoking isn't okay. It is such a killer that more
alcoholics die from tobacco than die from alcohol.
And being chronically half-sick from tobacco makes staying
sober *much* more difficult and of course inhibits or
prevents physical recovery.


Now I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I think that
anyone who has any true answers can be more help than someone
who deliberately pushes untrue answers, which is what A.A. does.

Lastly, you keep implying that I am somehow taking something
away from the poor alcoholics by telling them the truth --
that I "seek to strip away an outlet for people that have run
out of them."
When all I am doing is criticizing a dishonest cult that is
similar to Scientology or the Moonies -- something that will
mislead, misinform, and harm people rather than help them --
I am not robbing people of anything but their illusions.
Telling the truth may help some people.
Every so often, I get emails from people who say that reading
the truth did help them.


* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Agent_Orange]

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<Xx0La.1328$Im5.1076@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> Anecdotal proof is the only proof I need now. I used to need 80 or 100
> proof, but I recovered from that. Anecdotal is good.
>
> PS: Save your references to your "website". I have a hard and fast rule
> about NEVER going to any site hosted by tripod.com, the home of kiddie
> scripters, malware, spyware, and general lowlifes.
>

That is a good example of what both Herbert Spencer and
Bill Wilson denounced as "contempt prior to investigation."

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *